Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.

"Hooray!" Paul responded, when read the letter for the first time during an interview with Fox News. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question, so there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

During his dramatic filibuster, which delayed a vote on CIA director nominee John Brennan, Paul had demanded the administration clarify the government's authority to kill on U.S. soil. The filibuster ended early Thursday morning.

But on Thursday afternoon, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that said: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, before the Senate moved to vote on Brennan.

Though Paul's 13-hour stand drew praise from all sides of the political spectrum, the senator did take heat Thursday from some in his own party who claimed he stirred unnecessary fear about the use of drones.

Strictly speaking, Eric Holder already acknowledged this yesterday after three agonizing minutes of Ted Cruz teasing it out of him. But Rand Paul wanted a formal statement from the White House as a condition of ending his filibuster. And now, apparently, he’s got it:

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holders letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the presidents authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holders letter answers Mr. Rands question, Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Mr. Carney said.

The answer to that question is no, he said. A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.

That’s nearly the full text of the letter, a copy of which you can find at the Weekly Standard. All that’s missing is how it begins: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question.” Yeah? Paul’s been demanding an answer from the White House about this since mid-February at least. Only yesterday, after he spent 13 hours on the Senate floor repeating that question a few thousand times, did it finally come to Holder’s attention?

Also, before you celebrate, think carefully about whether Holder’s really answering his concerns. Paul wasn’t just asking about “weaponized drones.” He was asking about targeted killing generally. Sending the CIA in to shoot a guy in the head because he’s on O’s “kill list” doesn’t address the due process concerns just because no drone was used. The phrase “not engaged in combat” is also murky since the entire point of this debate is about defining what it means to be “engaged in combat” against the United States. Paul’s point yesterday was that, even if a U.S. citizen is an “enemy combatant,” the feds should be barred from summarily executing him if he’s on U.S. soil. Only if he’s in the process of carrying out an attack is lethal force justified. That’s his definition of “engaged in combat,” at least inside the continental U.S. The alternate definition is that an “enemy combatant” is, by his very nature, always engaged in combat against America. The DOJ itself more or less adopted that definition by defining “imminence” so broadly in its “white paper” on drone attacks as to suggest that members of Al Qaeda are always, at every moment, posing an imminent threat because they’re “continually plotting.” By that standard, Obama could drop a bomb on a U.S.-born jihadi hiding in an American safe house and still be okay under Holder’s letter here because the target was, as a member of Al Qaeda who was up to no good, necessarily “engaged in combat.” We’ll see what Paul has to say to all this. Not sure if he’s seen the letter yet, but for now he’s enjoying seeing them forced to speak up:

Rand Paul doing an end zone dance on Fox: “Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will relent and do the right thing.”

We suspect the day an administration starts killing Americans with drones at cafes  to borrow one of Rand Pauls hypotheticals  is the day impeachment proceedings begin. If Congress is worried, though, there is a simple expedient. As Andy McCarthy has written, Nothing prevents Congress from amending the AUMF to provide explicit protections for Americans suspected of colluding with this unique enemy. Congress could, for example, instruct that in the absence of an attack or a truly imminent threat, the president is not authorized to use lethal force in the United States against Americans suspected of being enemy combatants. Congress could also define what it means by imminent.

And in fact, Paul and Ted Cruz have a bill in the works that would do just that. Which poses a dilemma for O: Resist on grounds that the bill is a violation of separation of powers because it circumscribes his authority as commander-in-chief, or give in because it would be simply atrocious for a president to oppose a bill limiting his power to assassinate Americans?

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holders letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the presidents authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holders letter answers Mr. Rands question, Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Mr. Carney said.

The answer to that question is no, he said. A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder

Here's an image of that letter:

UPDATE: Apparently, the White House and Justice Department failed to send the letter to the person who asked the question--Rand Paul.

Spox for Sen. Rand Paul on Holder: "We haven't received any letter yet."

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Key bill text: The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.

I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

You didn't watch any of the filibuster, did you? I watched only three hours of the thirteen, and he addressed that specific scenario *multiple* times.

I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?

My opinion is Hell yes. Even if I was on that Plane. GW made the call on 9/11 after the tower attacks and I thought it was right then I would think it was right if Nero did it.

That is a world appart from Jose in Tupilo that is pissed at Nero and calls him a Muzzie loving Half Breed that should be tried for treason.

Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil ...

Yes, it was a victory. Thanks you Rand Paul.

But when dealing with democrats - people who wonder about the definition of 'is' is... it's best to tie down meanings. Who would trust these democrats any further than they can be thrown. Democrats need to give their assurances publicly - NOT just to blowhards that love to be flattered like Sen. John McCain.

The question in effect becomes  which do you prefer, 200 people dead or 3000 people dead?

And what about an American citizen who is a member of a terrorist cell actively plotting against the U.S. by planning the hijacking? Who happens to be holed up in a rural compound? Doesn't the question become isn't it preferable to save the 200, and by extension the thousands of other lives, by taking out the one through whatever means are at hand?

My point in all this is that it can't be as neatly black and white as Senator Paul would have it. Yes, we have due process and rule of law. Yes, that is the preferable course to follow. But if someone has crossed the line and is actively working against this country then stopping them from attacking us should be a priority. If we can accept the president ordering the death of hundreds of citizens through the use of a Sidewinder missile if there is no other way to prevent a greater tragedy, then why do we flinch at the idea of him ordering the death of one citizen through use of a Hellfire missile if there is no other way of stopping a greater tragedy?

Nope. That was easy. If some American is plotting to blow up other Americans and you know it, then arrest him and charge him. You don't get to just blow them up.

How many times a year to you hear about a police sniper shooting a hostage taker because they believe other people are in imminent danger? No arrest. No charges. Just a quick kill because there was no other way to prevent them from killing someone. Think of the Predator as a sniper on steroids and again, if there is no other way to prevent the taking of even more innocent lives, why not use it?

He said it was a red herring. Holder used both the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor scenarios to deflect from Rand Paul’s real concern.

Paul responded a number of times that neither he, nor any other senator, was questioning the Executive’s authority to respond to an immediate external attack upon the United States (specifically the 9/11 and Pearl Harbor scenarios). Nor did he question the use of lethal force in response to an imminent threat (someone aiming a rocket launcher at a building, someone robbing a bank....).

His concern was the lack of a clear response from the Administration as to whether they though they had the constitutional authority to assassinate a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without due process, even if that citizen was known to be involved in terrorist activities, but was not at the moment posing an imminent threat.

He’s been asking for a clear response to that very simple question since the end of January. And, if you saw the recent exchange between Ted Cruz and Eric Holder over this same question, you have an idea of the completely muddled, non-responsive answers he’s been receiving from the Administration.

Even Turbin Durbin came to the Senate floor last night to pose the 9/11 scenario to Rand Paul, in a desperate attempt to distract from the real issue — can the Executive Branch be arbitrary in its application of due process, or is every U.S. citizen on U.S. soil entitled to his Fifth Amendment rights, provided he is not posing an imminent threat.

Why is blowing him up with a hellfire missile in the USA the ONLY OPTION in the above case?

But what it if is the only option? What if he is unreachable by conventional law enforcement and has to be stopped immediately to prevent a terrorist attack? I'm not saying it's the first choice. I'm not saying it's the preferred choice. But if there is no other way then why not? If they are holed up in a cave in Yemen plotting against the U.S. then why not? If they're barracaded in a compound in Pennsylvania ready to give the order that will set a terrorist bombing into action then why not? If not acting will lead to the loss of even more innocent lives then why not?

What if he is unreachable by conventional law enforcement and has to be stopped immediately to prevent a terrorist attack?

You are talking about an *imminent* threat. Rand Paul said over and over and over again, just during the three of thirteen hours I watched, that he does not question the use of lethal force against an *imminent* threat.

Rather, Rand Paul was asking, What about a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, known to be involved in terrorist activities, but not at the moment posing an imminent threat? Can the Administration assassinate him?

You'd think the answer to that question would be a simple -- and an immediate -- NO! But Paul has gotten only lawyerly gobbledygook from Holder, Brennan and the WH for over one month on this simple question.

Perhaps the Administration is slow to respond clearly because they plan to expand the definition of "terrorist" to include Tea Party folks who cling hatefully to their guns, their Bibles, and their U.S. Constitution....

One thing is certain Obama and Holder would never used armed drones against their People!
So all you diverse residents be watchful of the skies!
Even though Holder said Obama would not use drones against the American People we all know FEDS LIE!
I really want to see the headlines of the first one shot down!
And the lawsuit of FEDS trespassing on an Americans soil!

How many times a year to you hear about a police sniper shooting a hostage taker because they believe other people are in imminent danger? No arrest. No charges. Just a quick kill because there was no other way to prevent them from killing someone. Think of the Predator as a sniper on steroids and again, if there is no other way to prevent the taking of even more innocent lives, why not use it?

Wow, conflating "plotting" with the "imminent danger" of someone holding hostages with a gun to their heads. Even in hostage situations, they attempt to talk the guy out, and you're jonesing to blow some guy up because he has a map and some plans. There is no moral difference between you and some guy proactively going out and shooting a politician because the politician is plotting to pass a law giving politicians free use of deadly force. You've ceded the high ground.

40
posted on 03/07/2013 1:45:04 PM PST
by Sirius Lee
(All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")

...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften [immigration, gay marriage] stance]

One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

48
posted on 03/07/2013 6:33:06 PM PST
by SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.